Guest Post: Fake Conservatives As Dangerous To Freedom As Obama

If Americans are looking for anything in the dark clouds of political dust and powdered ash that choke our air and leave us feeling naked against the elements, it is but a simple moment of sincerity. It sounds like an easily attainable thing, and yet, we continue to gasp and clamor. The visible surface of our nation is so devoid of honest connection with our social voice that we have turned to a cynical form of loneliness. We have embraced a life without clarity, and been made wretchedly bitter, desperate for even the faintest taste of truth.

The false two party paradigm that drives America gives us a measure of sustenance. Just enough to keep us from going completely mad, but not enough to end our hunger. As this process continues, however, and the establishment grows bolder, we too become savvy in the ways of the machine. Eventually, the old standards just don’t keep the masses distracted like they used to, and so, the system, not willing to give up power, decides instead to become “like us”, at least outwardly. It steals our vision and our song and goes on parade. It tries to make us believe again…

The campaign of Barack Obama in 2008 was a perfect example of the propaganda pageant, complete with visceral slogans like “Hope” and “Change”. After eight years of the clownish George Bush Jr., when our country spiraled down into a state of disturbed and vicious adolescence, people were looking for a renewal. They were looking for a path away from the edge of the abyss. Instead, they were given a better liar, with a brand new costume. The American Dream has become harder to sustain since…to say the least.

In 2012, what I see is like a lightning bolt in slow motion. I can sense it branching out across the sky towards the ground and tearing through our surroundings, upending everything we know. Both the President and Congress have some of the lowest approval ratings in history. The question of whether anything can be accomplished through government has been answered for most people with a resounding “no”. The citizenry is on the verge of total fury.

I wish I could say that most have abandoned the fleeting hollow satisfaction of choosing the “lesser of two evils”, but that would not be accurate.

Recently, I was invited (by several separate people) to a central event in the state elections of Montana called the “Lincoln-Reagan Dinner”, and promptly tried to avoid it like a rat infested plague ship. I know from experience what these kinds of political elbow rubbing parties can be like, and have been thoroughly unimpressed. Somehow, I ended up there anyway. If your only experience of the Republican Party was to attend such shindigs, you might think the stuffy anal-retentive caricatures we often see of conservatives are well deserved. In stark contrast to a Ron Paul rally, most of the attendees were little younger than 55, and few seemed very animated. Perhaps they were suffering from the same distaste of the whole thing as I was. Luckily, a solid 15% of the crowd were Liberty Movement oriented, which helped me to weather the overall painful proceedings (I also won a door prize; a coupon for a free dinner, mmmm…), but a pair of earplugs and a bottle of whiskey would have been far more comforting.

The party also gave me a momentary window into the future of the state in which I now reside, and even the probable nature of campaigns occurring across the nation. The prospects weren’t very pretty.

If Americans plan to look to the GOP to save them from the jaws of impending disaster, they had better reconsider that foolish notion. Obama may be riding the economic collapse straight at us like a wild Mako shark, but that’s no excuse to delude ourselves with fantasies of a Republican savior. Mitt Romney (a man whose legislative record is little different from Obama’s) is just the tip of the iceberg. At the state level, a much more dire charade is taking place.

A most noticeable trend is the language that fake conservatives (Neo-Cons) have adopted in the past year, switching from die hard statism to sudden “opposition” to Federal encroachment. What happened to the GOP’s love affair with centralized government? Well, the tides of the populace have changed considerably over the past few years, and in 2012, co-option is the name of the game.

While the media goes out of its way to ignore Ron Paul, the elites in the GOP have lately decided its better to sound at least a little bit like the Constitutionalist candidate. Now, the parasites are brandishing rhetoric they wouldn’t have been caught dead uttering not long ago; railing against EPA intrusion on state jurisdiction of natural resources mostly, and the Federal Government in general, but it wasn’t much help. Speech after speech, the candidates were heavy on flag waving placations, light on substance or honor. The general message of the assembly was repeated over and over again; WHOEVER the chosen candidates were after the primaries, conservatives were “duty bound” to supplant Obama and the Democrats at all costs. That is to say, if we do not unify around the selected Republican con-squad, Obama’s reelection would be entirely the fault of the non-conformists. “Anyone but Obama” was the catch phrase of the evening…

Sound familiar? It should. It’s the same kind of campaign the Democrats were running against Bush back in 2004, and it will lead to the same kind of disappointment.

Two political front men in Montana in particular left me so disgusted I could barely digest dinner afterwards. The first, of course, was Neil Livingstone, who as far as I can tell, is the quintessential nightmare candidate from the seventh circle of hell. With ties to the CIA under Air America, Iran Contra (though he denies it), multiple Blackwater-style mercenary firms, a penchant for death squads, and backdoor deals with dictators like Moammar Qaddafi, it’s hard to imagine a worse governor for an anti-Federal pro-Constitutional state like Montana. Though we have been covering this information since Livingstone’s entry into the race, it’s nice to see that other outlets are finally catching on:

Mother Jones treats Livingstone’s record as a kind of anomaly; an outlandish joke that makes him unelectable. However, I tend to take his presence in Montana a bit more seriously. Money and friends in high places are still viable strategies in our very corrupt electoral process, and Livingstone has both. The fact that the man moved back to Montana barely a year ago just to run for the governor’s position is also disconcerting. His running mate, Ryan Zinke, a former Seal Team 6 member, stated his solution to Montana’s unemployment problems is to build predator drone factories (I’m not joking). And, both have received backing from a local retired two star general by the name of Paul Vallely who wrote a book called “The Myths Of Gitmo: Torture, Abuse Or The Truth”, in which he defends the detainment procedures of the infamous facility and claims that no torture, or at least what he defines as torture, occurs there. Though, this is not half as disturbing as the paper “From PSYOP to MindWar: The Psychology of Victory” which he wrote with legendary military Psyop analyst and creepy occultist Michael Aquino (look this guy up for a lesson in dangerously weird).

Vallely has been posing locally and nationally as a Liberty Movement proponent with his organization “Stand Up America”, just as Livingstone and Zinke have been posing as Constitutional freedom loving traditional conservatives. Anyone who has studied the Cointelpro operations of the 1960’s and 1970’s would probably see a familiar pattern in all of this, but many Montanans I fear may not be quite so aware. Livingstone gets consistent applause for his broken record jokes on the hot button wolf problem here in the Big Sky State. And his speaking style is well trained. Like most political snake oil salesmen, he has the ability to talk a lot without saying much. It may well be that the Constitutionalist movement that is thriving here has garnered special attention, and men like those listed so far are not here by coincidence.

The second politician stealing our oxygen was Rep. Denny Rehberg, a self proclaimed Tea Party Republican who consistently votes for Neo-Con style legislation, including the NDAA. Rehberg washed patriotic during his substance-less speech during the Lincoln-Reagan dinner, wandering off on tangents about his mother and then back to push button topics like Obamacare. The one saving feature of his campaign was his opposition to the bailouts. Unfortunately, when confronted by Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers after the event on his support of the NDAA, Rehberg revealed his true colors.

Apparently not recognizing who Rhodes was, he accused the long time veteran of “not supporting the troops” because of his opposition to the bill. When confronted on the specific provisions of the bill which allow for indefinite detainment of any person the executive branch accuses of being an enemy combatant without trial, Rehberg denied that the bill opened doors to such action. This has been the typical response from other fake conservatives who voted for the draconian legislation.

Strangely, representatives of Rehberg have tried to contact Rhodes in the past to show support for a bill to “clarify” the language of the NDAA, but these drafts contained little to nothing to actually nullify the detainment sections. If Rehberg has no remorse over his support for the NDAA, and feels it holds no threat to the American people, why try to draft a state bill to clarify the U.S. citizen issue? According to Rehberg, the only reason was to silence Constitutionalists who had been pointing out his non-conservative, pro-statist behavior. “Clarity”, is not his true concern at all. The irrationality of the defense of the NDAA continues to escalate amongst closet neo-cons. From Alinsky style diversions and accusations, to full-on denial in spite of the evidence, they refuse to admit the nature of the legislation. Why? Because it is indefensible.

I have merely covered some local examples of fake-conservatives I have witnessed first hand, but this is a strategy being used all over the country. The incredible threat these people pose cannot be underestimated (in a follow up article, I will cover some examples of legitimate liberty candidates). With Obama sending America into a death spiral, the obvious and natural reaction by many will be to look to the conservative dynamic to put things right. Sadly, most Americans do not know what real conservatism and limited government looks like anymore. Frankly, any hobgoblin in a suit can claim he is a conservative nowadays, and then implement the same globalist, collectivist policies as the fake liberal before him. As I have said many times in the past, you have to examine the actions of these representatives, not their rhetoric. What they say is meaningless. What they do, and have done in the past, is everything. This election year, we MUST NOT play the old game of the “lesser of two evils”. The fact is, there is no such thing, and there never was.

this is not nor has it been for a long time a question of individuals. Each organization that these "individuals" stand behind are corrupt, criminal, hypocritical institutions that, together with the financial and other monsterous world wide organizations, are quickly destroying what is left of capitalism and democracy

If one accepts the proposition that the current standard bearers in the Republican and Democratic parties are essentially the tools of the one and same monied interests behind the scenes, then it makes no difference which one is elected. The resultant large picture outcomes will remain essentially constant.

Excepting the Rhetoric.

If one does not like the system the way it exisits then it is incumbent upon the individual to vote for a candidate other than the two front runners.I have a number of dearly misguided Neo-Con republicans (Getting harder to take every day, BTW even just to enjoy a round of golf, so fucking delusioned) who I told that IMHO if R Paul ran on the Repub ticket, he'd smash Obama.They don't like RP dismissing him as a Kook, anti-semite (they never gave a shit about that, before) worried about cutting military, etc., etc., etc, lots of excuses....To which my response is that they had their chance, should have supported him for President. They didn't and have lost.Now they're onto this horse shit about have to vote Repub to stop Obama.My point is that if the choice is Obama or Romney, why stop Obama?He's from the same party as Romney!

It dosen't matter here on out with those two.Welcome to the Hegelian Dialectic and Bernaysian Manipulations.Sure, one might raise taxes more than the other (assuming Congress goes along, best thing would be a house/admin divided) cut or enhance certain programsn, but the main Neo-Con wars, limits of freedoms, corporste favoritism profiteering, Wall Street Looting, suspension of the rule of law and unsustainable spending and borrowing ain't gonna change between and betwixt the two.

So aside from false pride and egomania, who gives a shit any more, anyway?Better things to spend my mental capital upon.

SO... I want you to watch the fits 5 minutes of this movie.. you say why James EVERYTHING!! you show us (or at least most of it) is depressing! I say that it will expand your Normalcy Bias.. which is to say that you will better understand what is going on around even though you haven’t seen it firsthand. Some of you may watch 5 minutes of this.. some of you may not.. but either way.. you will be seeing this up close and personal in REAL LIFE! sooner than later! (more on that after this Video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uvuG7jj0hc&list=PL513ACD985412F99C&index=1&feature=plpp_video

Now you say.. James that is in Israel (or Palestine depending on your view point and whether or NOT! England could give away land that wasn’t really theirs to begin with! another topic) any way.. James! that is Israel and NOT here! and I only had to watch the first 2 minutes to figure that out! and I say.. the Department of Homeland Security is FULLY FUNDED to build those types of Check Points ALL! around America!! to keep America safe from People who believe in the Constitution and who want to fight the Government expansion.. or stop Terrorists from Iran.. is what the Government says on CNN.. and!! the Most!! important part.. there are checkpoints already set up all around America! See this WHITE Pastor dragged from his CAR by Mexican Border Patrol Agents! LOL!!

It would be a shame if someone were to hunt this Mexicans down at their homes and treat their families the same way.. it would be a shame. There are a LOT! of crazy people out there who are very angry that America is being turned into a 3rd world country.. by people who came from a 3rd world country or were spawned by 3rd worldpersonalities who find this behavior acceptable.

Congress is set to give the green light on funding for a massive expansion of TSA checkpoints, with the federal agency already responsible for over 9,000 such checkpoints in the last year amidst increased fears America is turning into a police state following the passage of the ‘indefinite detention’ bill.

My "Oh so conservative" state rep voted for cameras at red lights in Florida The sad thing is with out his vote the bill to allow would not have passed. So now the city of Jacksonville has cameras at red lights with the full version of the latest facial recognition software-- thanks to the CONservative ass-wipe Republican liar. The thing that brought the vote-- a $500 campaign gift from the maker of the cameras for the upstanding congress person. By the way the guy is x-military--

Well said, Knuksie. I have the same problems with my friends, even after consistently pointing out the fallacies in the left-right paradigm. My friends are repubes, and for the most part think any repube is better than Obama. My attitude: with the exception of RP, they are one and the same. The repubes and dems are allowed to disagree only on certain insignificant issues that they use to divide the nation and allow for the illusion of choice. There is no lesser evil.

I wish you lived nearby. I can't think of many things that I would enjoy more than a round of golf with you, my friend.

Hi Dawg,Been a while! I sincerely hope you've been well.As always, clarity. WSImilar to another shared experience in life, it's nice knowing that one is not alone. As was in the famous book and movie, "We're not unique little snowflakes." Flakes maybe.... Perhaps the oddest and even more amazing phenomenon as to which you allude is that within the parametrics of the broad philosophical framework, they'll conceptually agree to the last digit to the right of the decimal point. Until the conclusion when it is fully apparrent that they've had Way the Fuck too Much Kool-Aid Brewed from Blue Pills immediately defaulting to the propagandized paradigm.Almost want to cry at times.Can truly be discouraging. Even wonder at moments if I'm the one whose nuts...Hey Dawg, we play our cards right and we'll get thet golf game.Blessings,K

If one accepts the proposition that the current standard bearers in the Republican and Democratic parties are essentially the tools of the one and same monied interests behind the scenes, then it makes no difference which one is elected.

Well, yes. However, if one accepts that the mainstream media has a leftward shift, then electing the candidate whose politics it doesn't share leads to a lot more challenges by the MSM of that politician. Obama is on track to run up $6 Trillion in debt by inauguration day, and yet the meme that right-wingers who complain about it are just racists is more news than the actual debt, which seems acceptible because it's their guy. Restrictions on freedom openly challenged when Bush was president are now only problems to paranoid right wingers, because again Obama is their guy. Unemployment is all leftover Bush policy problems, and of course gasoline prices are simply fodder for the next "those rich guys speculating sure is hurting us" story of no depth whatever. Not to mention OWS was pretty neutered by not going for Bambi's jugular, seemingly believing they were somehow gaining his support or sympathy since most had voted for him. Nobody in the MSM cares that Obama won't go after the crooks in the financial industry (except at fund raisers - FOR CONTRIBUTIONS) but I bet McCain would not be given one night's peaceful sleep over such cozey connections.

If McCain had been elected president and had made every (mis)step and run through every scandal of this administration, and of his friends and doners, had followed the same foreign policy, and had championed as much government winner-and-looser meddling as has Obama to this point, the MSM would have the nation whipped up into near-revolutionary frenzy. That alone is worth electing a Republican.

One way to kill the phony two party charade is to pick out one party and annihilate it. I nominate the Republican party, because they are wreck-able. Turn your back on the party, it's news outlets and any individual that cannot wise up. Don't engage them in any way. Associate with like-minded people only. No compromise. Work outside the system.

One way to kill the phony two party charade is to pick out one party and annihilate it.

Comment:

That is a tough thing to do. Dems got the back of Repubs and vice versa. It's not so much about which side is winning any more as long as its just the two of them. It's odd how once you get control of the purse/wallet of America, your attitude about small government and fiscal responsibility changes.

There's no difference in the parties. If you think the Republican party won't tear up the constitution, start numerous wars, encourage the FED to print, print, print then you haven't been paying attention.

Oh, I'm paying attention. I'm watching how a constitutionally-protected news media is in the tank for Obama and most of his policies, despite railing against same/similar under Bush. Getting rid of the Republicans simply means full-throttle spending to outright fiscal and social destruction, giddily cheered on by a teary-eyed MSM (free at last, free at last, thank God almighty free at last!), versus the possibility that the press might, out of spite if fo no other reason, wake up to hold Republicans feet to the fire on issues such as deficit spending, wars and entitlement programs. That's what nobody commenting yet has acknowledged, that with a predominantly anti-conservative, anti-Republican mainstream media bent on shaping the national conscience (Trayvon Martin, anyone?), it's better to have Republicans in office than Democrats at this time.

Your kind - the anarcho-capitalist extremists, are the most dangerous and extreme group America has had to deal with since the KKK. I'm sick and tired of your kind hijacking the freedom movement for your own crazy ideologies. The DEMOCRATS have always been the REAL freedom movement. We have been fighting for increased equality in America since the great society programs and the war on poverty. Since then we have created the most fair society on the planet with decreased gap between rich and poor, better job opportunities, a growing economy and a bright future with upward mobility for the disadvantaged. I think we deserve some credit for this.

C'mon knuckles, let the artist paint a picture, and learn to enjoy it. Can't you see how his posts undermine his stated position? Of course, if he tried it on HuffPo, he be their new leader! (thanks to Poe's Law)

Hey, don't bag on knukles. You want some entertainment? I myself was far more entertained by knukles' post than I was MDB's. MDB's post was just expected. It's tired. I think MDB is losing his edge. knukles' post, however, I thought was slyly brilliant. Legos and CPR. I love it.

Why is egalitarianism good? The only way in which equality can be ushered in is if all individuals are equal with respect to all given attributes. No one more talented, prettier, smarter, faster, stronger... the goal should be equality under the law. NOT transforming humans into a species devoid of diversity and our beautiful differences.

Not that I like hypocritical Republicans, but Frederic Douglass said in his time:

"I recognize the Republican Party as the sheet anchor of the colored man's political hopes and the ark of his safety."

You tripped up MDB. Your peeps have been proclaiming just the opposite of what you say. They claim a growing gap between rich and poor, more racism, more sexism, less opportunity and fairness, and blah blah blah. You need to get with your own program, or your programmers need to adjust your software.

Come on. What you created is a train wreck which is rapidly moving towards eventual catastrophe. The truth is that the only way to salvage the civilization is to evaluate and award human beings on their merits: productivity and creativity. The idea to redistribute wealth from more productive to worthless and lazy with the help of artificially and arbitrarily chosen elite group proved to be wrong in 100

percent cases of Marxist States. promotion the rights for entitlements as eventual equilizer may create a temporal illusion of harmony but eventually unaffordable and devastating. The civilization should move to eliminate artificial borders, divisions on wealthy and poor states. The role of the governments should be limited to protection of individual safety and property (including intellectual one). Obama may call it social Darvinism but what can he offer instead? Does he have new scientific or technological ideas? Can he prevent government corruption? ( The recent examples of GSA and Secret service behavior come to mind).

Can he do anything constructive except for borrowing and redistributing and introducing host of new regulations from which only lawers and accountant firms can benefit? Can he save the world? No. Then just shut up.

Exactly! If someone doesn't contain the basic elements of MY position(s) then I would not vote for them. In the same election year (back when I voted) I had voted for two people that were supposed to be at opposite sides of the political spectrum; the reason I did was because they were the only ones on the ballot that promoted the individual and eschewed the war machine (yes, RP was one of those): both got contributions from me.

Romney taking over the thrown would just kill the momentum to rid ourselves of this duopoly. Figure that the "left" is just about had it with Obama and you can see that there is where the only real chance comes in (BOTH "sides" will be in agreement). But, how it works is that TPTB need to re-freshen things before any real threat sets in- so, Romney it will be (who controls the voting machines?).

There are no facts, only beliefs. That is why you get junked. Politics is like religion.

It is not about facts until you step outside of the sphere. Inside it is belief. Outside you see there is not a spits bit of difference between anyone on the ticket. Inside you get riled up about gay marriage, guns, etc.

I won't vote for either of the bastards! And nobody can make me.

(that pisses off the false constitutionalists, watch the junks fly)

Sometimes it is much better to be right and junked then to be just another voice in the echo chamber.

Politics IS a religion, PERIOD. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that supports the existence of a "State". This concept exists only in our minds, and like the idea of "God", is completely self-contradictory and IMPOSSIBLE for many, many reasons. Additionally, there's no such thing as a law (other than the natural laws like gravity, etc.), there's no such thing as borders (except natural borders like rivers and coastlines, etc.), there's no such thing as a "social contract" (A contract must be signed / agreed to by those it involves! I don't remember singing any fucking contract), and on and on and on.

I'll agree with you, "politics IS a religion, PERIOD" - and I like that you also correctly identify "borders" etc. as belief systems. . .

it's a fact that "nation state borders" are fictions inhabiting minds, and then defended by those same inhabited minds, as is state loyalty (why? when the state is NOT loyal to you?), and all the other things that represent people's realities.

If you actually think that the US was founded on Anarchy you are a fool or idiot or BOTH!

The rule of law is impossible without some level of government (local/state/fed) to enforce it.

You can NOT have rule of law based on "non-hierarchical voluntary associations." It doesn't work. Take a look at ANY country on this planet where there is no rule of law. People are widely victimized by the strong and crime is rampant.

When everyone is on the same page many systems work. Most small primitive societies managed to use ostracism to enforce the will of the people. Unfortunately in most modern societies ostracism doesn't have the desired effect on people.

Unfortunately in most modern societies ostracism doesn't have the desired effect on people.

Social ostracism, perhaps, but the obvious solution is MARKET OSTRACISM! Think ebay seller ratings; you rip people off, defraud them, hurt them initiate violence against them, in a stateless society all you need to do is shut them out of the marketplace. What are you going to do if nobody will voluntarily sell you food? Your only hope would be subsistence living. This is just a strong a deterrent, if not moreso, than our current "system", with the added benefit of not caging and raping millions of people whose only crime was that they had a bit of vegitation in their pocket that the State didn't approve of, among many other competely victimless "crimes".

Humanity will look at the violence and caging that the State perpetrates and just shake their heads sadly, as we do when we look back on those who practiced slavery.

@Trembo: Wrong. anarchy ALWAYS devolves into lawlessness as long as humans are involved. Where there is "humanity" there is "inunmanity". The strong will always eventually enslave the weak in the absence of some "law" (natural or man made).

There are no functioning examples of anarchy working as a "system", because by it's very nature it is NOT a "system".

You can not have freedom without the freedom FROM something. For me to pursure my freedoms and pleasures I have to be FREE from you coming and trying to violate me and my property. If there is no law there why would you not simply walk in to my house, kill me, and take what I had worked for? Why? Because some higher power says you should not?

If the pursuit of my freedoms and happiness never impacted other people, then of course the system would work. But what if someone's idea of a good time was taking what others had built or earned? Laws are requied to keep humans from being inhuman.. simple as that..

"Where there is "humanity" given monopoly priviledge over the use of force, there is "inunmanity"

What you are saying is that you support the use of force against your friends and neighbors. Perhaps this stems from the belief that voluntary exchange is somehow a zero sum game? Pehaps from childhood abuse (not to be mean, but there is a connection)?

You can not have freedom without the freedom FROM something.

Now that is an orginal argument. We need tyranny, so we can be free from tyranny. Got it.

If there is no law there why would you not simply walk in to my house, kill me, and take what I had worked for

Strawman. In the 20th Century alone, governments murderd over 250 MILLION of it's own citizens, not counting wars, and has imprisoned millions more. If you need it in writing, and require threat of incarceration, to know that murder is bad, then you are part of the problem. Initiation of force is wrong period. But when government does it, we call it a tax, or protection, or some other Statist, Common Good bullshit.

@Trembo: Wrong. anarchy ALWAYS devolves into lawlessness as long as humans are involved. Where there is "humanity" there is "inunmanity". The strong will always eventually enslave the weak in the absence of some "law" (natural or man made).

To live in a world without man-made laws... ah, got a partial just thinking about it. As to your other point, we've had laws for, what, the last couple of thousand years or so? So why did we practice slavery for pretty much that entire time? Can you share some examples of these mythical anarchic societies that devolved into this terrible lawlessness that you so seem to fear?

There are no functioning examples of anarchy working as a "system", because by it's very nature it is NOT a "system".

Even if this were true, which of course it isn't, the same argument could've been made prior to the abolition of slavery. Additionally, it DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER HOW IT WOULD "WORK". The initiation of the use of force is FUCKING IMMORAL AND YOU KNOW IT. It's the reason you don't point a gun at a woman to get her to marry you, or at your boss to give you a job, or at a woman to have sex with you (we call this "rape", and it is differentiated from making sweet, sweet love ONLY by the INITIATION of the USE of FORCE.) It's the reason slavery was immoral, and frankly I don't see that coming back any time soon now that the moral argument has been accepted by humanity.

You can not have freedom without the freedom FROM something. For me to pursure my freedoms and pleasures I have to be FREE from you coming and trying to violate me and my property. If there is no law there why would you not simply walk in to my house, kill me, and take what I had worked for? Why? Because some higher power says you should not?

You give the agents of the state the power to do exactly what you fear (violate you and your property) and somehow this makes you free? REALLY?! "In order to be free from slavery, we must be slaves." Sheesh, do you actually BELIEVE that?!

There are only two laws in a free society, and they are directly derived from natural, moral laws, and you LEARNED THEM IN FUCKING KINDERGARTEN. You don't initiate the use of force against others (don't hit, don''t kick) and you respect the property rights of others (don't take other kids stuff without their permission). These laws will be enforced by voluntarily ostracising from the human marketplace those who violate them.

If the pursuit of my freedoms and happiness never impacted other people, then of course the system would work. But what if someone's idea of a good time was taking what others had built or earned? Laws are requied to keep humans from being inhuman.. simple as that..:

If you're worried about someone stealing your shit, go get some insurance against it. Make the insurance company replace anything that is stolen, maybe x2. These insurers will be incentivised to deter people from theft, and they'll do this by organizing a mechanism to voluntarily ostracise offenders from the human marketplace. Will theft still occur? Probably. But if someone steals your car, and as a result you get two cars, and the only cost is a reasonable monthly insurance premium, I think that could work just fine. But once again you're missing the point; IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER HOW IT WILL WORK. We got rid of slavery because of the moral argument, though there was a powerful practical argument as well; it's the exact same thing with the state, and eventually we'll figure that out too. Assholes like you will be consigned to the shitheap of history well the rest of us move on.

You can live in your little utopia dream world all you want, but it does not exist.

Anarchy leads to bad human behavior and there is no way around it. It's been proven over and over and over again.

Insurance in an anarchist state? WTF are you smoking? In an Anarchist state I could just fucking shoot someone for walking on my property and call it a day. Who needs insurance.

Anarchy = survival of the most powerful and slavery for the weak. You can hide behind your utopian beliefs and keyboard but I have 1000s of years of human history and natural process to prove the point. Your utopia has never existed nor will it ever.

Anarchy does not equate to lawlessness. What anarcho-capitalists/libertarians advocate is the dissolution of the state as it is in the very nature of the state to exist by violating the just property rights of its subjects (taxation) and maintaining its dominance by a "legal" monopoly on the initiation of force.

We are trying to get you to at least entertain the idea, you can disagree and still believe more classical-liberal ideals, but please just pull your head out of your ass and understand the difference between what you THINK we advocate and what we actually advocate.

In an anarchist country, you could not shoot someone on your property and call it a day. Law still exist. You would be a murderer as you cannot nonchalantly deprive someone of their most precious piece of property (themselves) except in self-defense.

Objective law exist without government. In fact, it is only because natural law exist that any positive law can be classified as just or unjust in the first place. Everything the Nazi's did was legal according to positive law. It's contrast came from actual law (the law that derives from our property-rights).

Take a look at ANY country on this planet where there is no rule of law. People are widely victimized by the strong and crime is rampant.

Thanks for describing the United States, and doing all the heavy lifting required to make a counter-point. We tried the small gumbint = rule of law experiment. It has failed by growing into the largest, most advanced State, the world has ever known.

If people are innately "bad" such as to require government to make them "good", what sense does it make to hand a few people (who are "bad" remember) all of the guns, and a monopoly over the use of force? Who among the people (who are still all "bad") do you expect to gravitate toward an organization with all of the guns, and a monopoly on force?

Yeah and the fucked up thing is that the reason that the US Government is so massive and powerful is because a free society produces TREMENDOUS wealth! The American experiment resulted in the freest society ever conceived by man, but they couldn't let go of the poison pill of the State, so it grew and grew and grew like a cancer until like you said it has become theo largest killing machine the world has ever known.

The smallest governments ALWAYS result in the largest government. The obvious solution is no government.

On the contrary, it is the State that does not exist in the real world, just your imagination and fantasy.

Anarchy is a solution and it does exist in the real world, and you practice it every day. It exists in the marketplace of human relationships: you voluntarily choose your spouse, it is not arranged by the State and no force is involved, unless we're talking about arranged marraiges. It exists to some extent in the marketplace of the corporate world: you voluntarily choose who you work for, you don't hold a gun to their head and demand a job. Anarchy is everywhere, and it is wonderful!

Your obvious anger in response to the ideas of anarchy are likely an indication of an abusive childhood. I am guessing you were abused by your parents, either physically or verbally or both. They controlled your life, treated you like a slave, told you what to do, put you in State prisons ("public school"), and you were NOT free. Acknowledging the immorality of the use of force means acknowledging the immorality of your parents, which is a very, very difficult thing to do, hence the anger response.

I hope you can work through your issues, Mike, and get over this support of immorality and violence that has no place in a civilized society. It's beautiful on the other side.

I am not talking about interpersonal relationships and you know it. I am talking about how to govern a parcel of land (like the US) and the people who inhabit that land.. and you know this too.

In an given cross section of humanity there are those who would victimize others simply because they enjoy it. They are sometimes known as the "2%'ers"... in that 98% of the people are good people who would rather help another than hurt each other.

How, in the anarchy utopia, do you deal with the 2%'ers? When there are no laws, there is no way to deal with it other than vigilantism. That too breaks down into bad things and powerful people enforce things on the weak.

But in your "beautiful" side, I suppose that doesn't exist. Believe me when I say I wish I was wrong because I would love to live in a utopia with no government, no rules, and simply voluntary associations, and still not have to worry about the 2%-ers... But I live in the real world where some people do bad stuff.

No government doesn't mean no rules, in fact it's when you have a government that law breaks down. Why? Because there can be no check on the government, so the people who are 'in' get to pass unjust rules that favor them over everyone else. As you have no doubt noticed.

The solution is to not give all the power to just one group, instead you keep it distributed. And that doesn't mean vigilantism, because actually having rules is to everyone's benefit, including the 2% you posit. There are many examples in history of people cooperating and respecting self-imposed rules, such as the law merchant or the current way insurance companies arbitrate between themselves. See Murray Rothbard's online archive for details.

Also, these are indeed interpersonal relationships. We have all been led to view government and the necessity for it as belonging to some higher plane of existence, but that's only propaganda to get us to accept violence as inevitable. Check out Nonviolent communication on youtube sometime.

The solution is to not give all the power to just one group, instead you keep it distributed.

Well, that's what we thought when we separated federal power into three branches and more than countered it with the constitutional authority bestowed on each of the states by the people. Unfortunately, people want government, and they seem to like it centrallized.

To make any kind of new government work, even anarchy, you must first expell or exterminate any person who doesn't fit in the new reigime. That sort of person is usually dependent on or holding power in the current reigime.

It was easy to expell England, as the King never had to leave his pallace. His troops needed only to sail home. Royalists were killed, run off or turned. Where will the millions upon millions of Americans bought into the current system, who won't fit in the next incarnation of the US of A, retreat to when we greet the New Boss?

It's "anarchism," not "anarchy" that you'd be looking for. YES, there IS a difference. It's the "ism" part.

Most people are totally clue-less, and TPTB's propaganda channels have been doing an excellent job of programming everyone the believe that anarchism is bad and that it's behind threats to the "establishment." Well, yes on the later part, but this is due to not bowing to TPTB, not to the propaganda of violence etc. (agents provocatuers- http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2007/08/23/police-montebello.html - ask yourself if it was really necessary to dawn those outfits, the supposed symbol of anarchists [which I would dispute]).

For more on how anarchism has been painted (and this picture accepted by the masses):

The term anarchism didn't really exist until the 20th century. It is, however, back-dated: applied to prior history (one could have a pretty good leg to stand on arguing that Jesus was quite a bit an anarchist).

Dude, flip over Obama and you will see Romney. Two heads on the same coin. I can't wait for the day that a majority of Americans figure this bullsh*t out. Politics are for Washington. Revolution is for America.

wow, it seems my sarcasm was a little too dry. what i ment was that the only differnce between romney and obummer is that romney has yet to have presidential platform to prove him self equally as horrible as our current figurhead. short of ron paul do any of us really think it matters who holds office? we all know we're screwed reguardless. what im trying to figure out is weather i'd be more screwed here or in ireland... any thoghts?

If he gets in, TPTB will just stop propping everything up, letting it all collapse at once. That way the sheeple will cry out "Save Us!" yet again, splitting the people up into two camps, those that know TNSTAAFL, and those that demand even more handouts, regardless of the consequences.

Honestly, no matter what unfolds, I don't see (thanks to Mises) any way of avoiding martial law at some point.

Apart from waiting for the economic collapse of the US what else can you do? I think your only way out of your mess would be civil war, but Americans won't ever do that. All I can see in your future is anarchy or mutual assured destruction. One way out would be to write a brand new constitution, make the two party system illegal, but that'll never happen either.

When things get really ugly I think it will very likely split into 3 or 4 separate nations, the cultural and regional fault lines are already there. I dont think its accurate to view the US as a homogenous entity in any way shape or form, the only commonalities are language and currency which do not make a people.

Delegate count what? I appreciate what Lemon Global is trying to do, but did they get their delegate count from some sort of rogue extra-dimensional string-theory experiment?

From where I'm sitting, there is a pretty sizable difference between 63 and 518. You say ol' Ron Paul has 518. From where I'm sitting, he's got 63. This is not counting any delegates from Missouri, as their primary is not for another 3 days (Sat. April 21). The # I'm looking at .. 63 .. is counting the application of any penalties, and includes unpledged delegates. It also doesn't count the delegates from American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. But adding in the territories ain't gonna get you 518.

So just put down the funny-looking pipe and back away. It is not doing your math skills any favors.

The GOP should make Rand Paul was the Senate Minority Leader today. All this BS from Reid and Obama, Pelosi Durban. Put someone up there that can call these assholes out. I am tired of McC and Boener being the voice of opposition.

where have you been? On Gingrinch's moon colony? The ogligarchs have bought the political process. They control both parties, so they shape policies, and law, no matter who is in power.

Why do you think the middle class has been gutted over the last 30 years, while the top 0.001% have more wealth today, than at any time in US history?

The only representative democracy in the US is the representation for the ogligarchs.

Kurt Godel, after examining the US constitution found a fundamental logical flaw, which if left unresolved, would lead the US perniciously towards a dictatorship. He never disclosed what the logical contradiction was to anyone. But it is there.

google it.

Everyday, I see the shapes of things to come, and I wonder if the logical flaw is manifesting itself.

DormRoom, you, my friend, are 100% correct. It even sounds funny when I tell people that a few own and run this world. But, this is the Truth. Try to find the Major stock holder individuals of the Central Banks. (Can't be done...)

The world is about to go through the 5 stages of mourning. I have already been through it and am mentally prepared for what is coming. You should also prepare.....for life afterwards....

I've always thought it was the fact that our judiciary is staffed by "made" attorneys. Appointed for life to remain beholden to the forces they allied themselves to in order to be dressed in silly black robes.

This would explain the judges' quick and terse end to the conversation at Godel's citizenship hearing.

Kind of along the same lines, I would love to see RP head the executive branch, but a top executive does not an organization make. He must surround himself with competent like minded individuals in order to carry out the policies desperately needed to restore the US to prosperity. I'd like to think they're out there but the 4th estate will do whatever they can to prevent their being considered.

Amending the Constitution is the loophole. All they need are 38 state legislatures and Congress to pass an amendment. We all know this is difficult, but given the crux of this article (and the comments) how hard would it be to infiltrate certain states and get the non-existant two party system to agree to a dictator? Now (today) maybe not, but in the future, who knows? But I am pretty sure this is what Godels meant in regard to a loop-hole. The Constitution allowed amendments because we are "governed by the will of the people" and ask any lawyer, and many will tell you the Constitutionality of Amendments has not really been discussed due to the basic reason for the Amendment process (ie will of the people). If you guys agree I really dig German beer.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross". Not that fascism isn't here already... has been for a long time, but the next phase, the one that will be a bit more unmistakable, will likely be under the false banner that you describe.

all personal religious beliefs need to be kept out of any "governance" - ALL of them.

if folks want to hang with their fellow co-religionists, and only those like them, fine - but no laws, no enforcement, no constitutional amendments, nada, if they're based in personally held religious beliefs.

A morbidly obese woman who says she needs help getting out of bed in the morning managed to make it to see her favourite boy band - The Wanted - in concert.

The woman says she needs up to 50 hours-a-week of care, but Plymouth Council disagrees - insisting her worst enemy is her own "dependency" on the state.

...the woman's lawyers are bidding to convince the High Court the council is legally obliged to lay on a full care regime for her, including support staff to help her wash and dress herself and cook her meals.

Her legal team says the council must also provide staff to accompany her when out shopping, when she goes to the gym or "weight management" classes - and even when "she goes to a disco on Friday nights".

I imagine that TBTB are trembling in their Gucci loafers and armored limos!

The simple fact is the citizenry is too concerned with figuring out how to milk the system to bother with understanding how to change it, not to mention destroy it.

Humans are easily domesticated.

Divide and conquer via a two-party system is just one of the methods. Add in cheap calories, sedentary entertainment, positive feedback loops, and a racket posing as a legal system, and the next thing you know, here we are farming tax/debt slaves.

Was just talking to another one of the clueless today. He tells me that we're just in a cycle and that it's currently bust ,bust and that it'll, according to "cycle theory" (my quotes) it'll all get well once again...

Thinking that you're going to save anyone is a joke. Just have to go forward and not look back.

forget the newspeak names and terms for political, economic and social ideologies for a minute and think about the true meaning of the word conservative. A mennonite man went past my house this morninig making some deliveries in his horse and buggy, pretty conservative folks, so conservative they still do things like they did 200 years ago. The mennonite community is so conservative they want to be left alone and free to interact with society as they see fit and grow some vegetables and keep some livestock. I'm so conservative I appreciate their community and support their right to live as they see fit, despite the fact I don't share their religious or cultural beliefs and even give a nod or a wave to the man as he goes past.

Your problem is you don't even understand the true meaning of the term conservative you seem to have mistaken the word conservative for state sponsored centrally planned economies.

Progressives threaten my freedom and way of life more than a truly conservative person EVER could.